For purposes of this OP, God exists and is Omnipotent, and is otherwise as described in the NT.
One of the best fantasy writers of the '70's and 80's, Piers Anthony once quipped,
"God created the universe, Satan caused it to evolve."
Which made a lot of sense to me, when I was a believer. (Back in the '80's.)
So I am thinking a step forward.
Divinely inspired evolution:
We see genes change (like it or not creationists) and this even occurs over your lifetime (that's right, your genetics are not identical to when you were born - in a creationist sense, you are evolving - who knows, some of us might be even be evolving into apes - or is it the other way 'round?).
Anyway, if there is a God who loves us, even allowing for free will, wouldn't his desires for our well-being slowly or very quickly change us into perfect creatures?
God IS omnipotent, (OK God is omnipotent for purposes of this OP), so wouldn't his will, his desires change us, even the world according to what he wants? If he is Omnipotent, and things aren't changing according to his will, why not?
Why or why not? My thesis for this OP is, that since according to the Bible, God wants the best for us, and is all-powerful, the effect of his will upon mankind should dramatically change mankind - genetically, psychologically, or otherwise.
Submitted for your consideration and elaboration.
Divinely inspired evolution
Moderator: Moderators
Post #321
[Replying to post 315 by rikuoamero]
I think you misunderstood my point. I did not say God is human-shaped. I said a genuine uniformity must exist between ourselves and god. Such uniformity does not mean God is absolutely identical to us in all respects, does not overlook major differences between God and ourselves. For example, I view the universe as the body of god, because I find no other metaphor does justice to God's great intimacy with all things. What we know best , are most intimate with, is what goes on in our own bodies. However, the major difference between ourselves and God is that God's body is the entire universe, God is incarnate throughout the entire creation, whereas we are incarnate largely in our own bodies. God's body would be the size and shape of the universe, which is a long way from how our body looks.
I don't see the relevance of your point about the watch standing out. The fact one thing stands out over another has nothing to do with the fact as to whether they have intelligence or not. Toscanini yelling at the NBC Symphony really stands out, but certainly does not mean that he was dealing with a bunch of machines or robots.
I think you misunderstood my point. I did not say God is human-shaped. I said a genuine uniformity must exist between ourselves and god. Such uniformity does not mean God is absolutely identical to us in all respects, does not overlook major differences between God and ourselves. For example, I view the universe as the body of god, because I find no other metaphor does justice to God's great intimacy with all things. What we know best , are most intimate with, is what goes on in our own bodies. However, the major difference between ourselves and God is that God's body is the entire universe, God is incarnate throughout the entire creation, whereas we are incarnate largely in our own bodies. God's body would be the size and shape of the universe, which is a long way from how our body looks.
I don't see the relevance of your point about the watch standing out. The fact one thing stands out over another has nothing to do with the fact as to whether they have intelligence or not. Toscanini yelling at the NBC Symphony really stands out, but certainly does not mean that he was dealing with a bunch of machines or robots.
Post #322
[Replying to post 316 by Joe1950]
Wait a sec. I don't follow you here at all. First, you say science is intended to give us more knowledge of our physical world. Then contradict that, saying such expanded experience is merely a by-product of science. So just what do you see as the purpose of science? How can you separate science from expanding our experience when, by definition, science holds all knowledge comes through experience? And, if you take into consideration the social or behavioral science, science also strives to broader our experience of ourselves, enable us to feel more deeply into ourselves.
True, science often does not talk about aesthetics, about feelings. But they re there. You can see that in the smile that comes from mathematicians when they solve a problem. You can see that in the satisfaction expressed by scientists in finding the equation. You can see that in the beauty of an equation, where so much is expressed through so little. Simplicity and complexity going together right there, in the writing of an equation.
Wait a sec. I don't follow you here at all. First, you say science is intended to give us more knowledge of our physical world. Then contradict that, saying such expanded experience is merely a by-product of science. So just what do you see as the purpose of science? How can you separate science from expanding our experience when, by definition, science holds all knowledge comes through experience? And, if you take into consideration the social or behavioral science, science also strives to broader our experience of ourselves, enable us to feel more deeply into ourselves.
True, science often does not talk about aesthetics, about feelings. But they re there. You can see that in the smile that comes from mathematicians when they solve a problem. You can see that in the satisfaction expressed by scientists in finding the equation. You can see that in the beauty of an equation, where so much is expressed through so little. Simplicity and complexity going together right there, in the writing of an equation.
Post #323
[Replying to post 317 by Joe1950]
The term "law" is an inherently human concept. So when you apply it to nature, you are anthropomorphizing nature. If human concepts do not apply to the natural order, then you cannot speak of their being any "laws" there.
Also, I am suggesting that the best starting point for knowledge to f work from what we are most familiar with, and that is human existence. And In our experience, laws don't get there without a law maker.
Your example of manufactured goods is exactly what I mean. We know from our experience , the best starting point, that order requires an ordering mind, that you just can't throw paint on canvas and get a Mona Lisa. Plus, we know and arbitrary w that laws make for uniformities. We seek uniformities. So it would be very strange to assume there is one set of laws governing nature and then another set governing ourselves, such that supposedly blind, passive, inert, dead matter can produce order all by itself, but when it comes to our needs we have to bring in an ordering mind to get things done. No, I believe we all live under the same principles. Hence, what we find true of ourselves, that complex order requires a designing mind, also holds for the rest of nature.
Plus, law and order are exclusively mental concepts. It makes no sense to talk about them apart from mind. Why should supposedly blind, inert, passive, dead matter care whether or not there is order? Habit, regularity, ahs meaning only in a mental context.
The term "law" is an inherently human concept. So when you apply it to nature, you are anthropomorphizing nature. If human concepts do not apply to the natural order, then you cannot speak of their being any "laws" there.
Also, I am suggesting that the best starting point for knowledge to f work from what we are most familiar with, and that is human existence. And In our experience, laws don't get there without a law maker.
Your example of manufactured goods is exactly what I mean. We know from our experience , the best starting point, that order requires an ordering mind, that you just can't throw paint on canvas and get a Mona Lisa. Plus, we know and arbitrary w that laws make for uniformities. We seek uniformities. So it would be very strange to assume there is one set of laws governing nature and then another set governing ourselves, such that supposedly blind, passive, inert, dead matter can produce order all by itself, but when it comes to our needs we have to bring in an ordering mind to get things done. No, I believe we all live under the same principles. Hence, what we find true of ourselves, that complex order requires a designing mind, also holds for the rest of nature.
Plus, law and order are exclusively mental concepts. It makes no sense to talk about them apart from mind. Why should supposedly blind, inert, passive, dead matter care whether or not there is order? Habit, regularity, ahs meaning only in a mental context.
Post #324
[Replying to post 318 by DrNoGods]
I don't think you quite grasped my point. Asking why the mutation happened is simply asking why the past did not repeat itself. The logical answer is that some new potential has entered the picture and was actualized. Well, did this new potential come from? Obviously, it didn't come from the past. If the past were purely in charge, it would condition everything, and then simply repeated itself. So something must have broken in from outside the box. And that something is the transcendental imagination, the storehouse of creative potentiality. It's like Hume's missing shade of blue. He argued all our thoughts come from the world, from our past experience. Then he admitted a case where someone could supply a missing shade of blue, something they and nobody else had never seen before, the shade that never was on land or sea. Well, where did this creative possibility come from? it certainly didn't come from the past, the world, but it must have come from somewhere. Hume, of course, just mentioned the example and then just walked away, probably because it threatened his thesis. Big mistake. His example shows novelty is real, we really do hafve access to ideas outside the box, so to speak.
I don't think you quite grasped my point. Asking why the mutation happened is simply asking why the past did not repeat itself. The logical answer is that some new potential has entered the picture and was actualized. Well, did this new potential come from? Obviously, it didn't come from the past. If the past were purely in charge, it would condition everything, and then simply repeated itself. So something must have broken in from outside the box. And that something is the transcendental imagination, the storehouse of creative potentiality. It's like Hume's missing shade of blue. He argued all our thoughts come from the world, from our past experience. Then he admitted a case where someone could supply a missing shade of blue, something they and nobody else had never seen before, the shade that never was on land or sea. Well, where did this creative possibility come from? it certainly didn't come from the past, the world, but it must have come from somewhere. Hume, of course, just mentioned the example and then just walked away, probably because it threatened his thesis. Big mistake. His example shows novelty is real, we really do hafve access to ideas outside the box, so to speak.
-
Joe1950
Post #325
If you go back and read post 316 you will see I was responding to your claim that the purpose of science is to "broaden our experience". As I suggested, that is too vague to have meaning. So, I more specifically defined the basic purposes of science. My purposes are more to the point . Whether or not science broadens ones experience is not relevant to the practical knowledge attained. It is nice. It is a by product. But to simply "broaden" is not the goal of science. The purpose or goal of science is to solve real problems. I don't see my answer, taken as a whole, as contradictory.hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 316 by Joe1950]
Wait a sec. I don't follow you here at all. First, you say science is intended to give us more knowledge of our physical world. Then contradict that, saying such expanded experience is merely a by-product of science. So just what do you see as the purpose of science? How can you separate science from expanding our experience when, by definition, science holds all knowledge comes through experience? And, if you take into consideration the social or behavioral science, science also strives to broader our experience of ourselves, enable us to feel more deeply into ourselves.
True, science often does not talk about aesthetics, about feelings. But they re there. You can see that in the smile that comes from mathematicians when they solve a problem. You can see that in the satisfaction expressed by scientists in finding the equation. You can see that in the beauty of an equation, where so much is expressed through so little. Simplicity and complexity going together right there, in the writing of an equation.
Are scientists happy when they solve problems? I assume so. However, if a scientist was not happy when she solved a problem that would have no effect on the actual working of science. An unhappy scientist, doing proper science, can be just as effective as Jim the Jolly Astronomer.[/b]
Post #326
[Replying to post 325 by Joe1950]
I like terms such a "enrich" or "broader our experience" because I find they hit the nail right on the head. Science enables us to know more the world and also about ourselves. And all that comes through enriched experience and means enriched experience. Scientific instruments I like to view as extensions of ourselves. By telescopes, we expanded our visual experience of the world, for example. By technology, we don't just have to look up at the moon. We can have a richer experience; we, or at least some of us, can actually go there and experience it first hand. There is much more to it than just solve problems. The fact is, we humans are hardwired to be curious, to want to explore deeper, experience more.
And when it comes to problem solving, that is also a prime example of what I mean. The problems science is called upon to solve are ones having to do with obstacles to our quest for beauty, obstacles preventing us from living well and living better. By solving problems, we expand our experience repertoire. Before electric lights, it was very difficult to go places at night and to do a lot of things around the house. Electricity completely revolutionized and enriched our lifestyle.
And why do people take up science? Because they are fascinated with it, because of the rich emotional high they get doing their work. And yes, when scientists come up with something dissatisfying, they do take their dissatisfaction seriously, seek to relieve it. There aren't any thoughts we have that are absolutely indifferent to affect and feeling. Sometimes this aesthetic side gets ignored in science, true, but it is still there. The great painters were some of the best students of anatomy. Art and science go hand in hand.
I like terms such a "enrich" or "broader our experience" because I find they hit the nail right on the head. Science enables us to know more the world and also about ourselves. And all that comes through enriched experience and means enriched experience. Scientific instruments I like to view as extensions of ourselves. By telescopes, we expanded our visual experience of the world, for example. By technology, we don't just have to look up at the moon. We can have a richer experience; we, or at least some of us, can actually go there and experience it first hand. There is much more to it than just solve problems. The fact is, we humans are hardwired to be curious, to want to explore deeper, experience more.
And when it comes to problem solving, that is also a prime example of what I mean. The problems science is called upon to solve are ones having to do with obstacles to our quest for beauty, obstacles preventing us from living well and living better. By solving problems, we expand our experience repertoire. Before electric lights, it was very difficult to go places at night and to do a lot of things around the house. Electricity completely revolutionized and enriched our lifestyle.
And why do people take up science? Because they are fascinated with it, because of the rich emotional high they get doing their work. And yes, when scientists come up with something dissatisfying, they do take their dissatisfaction seriously, seek to relieve it. There aren't any thoughts we have that are absolutely indifferent to affect and feeling. Sometimes this aesthetic side gets ignored in science, true, but it is still there. The great painters were some of the best students of anatomy. Art and science go hand in hand.
-
Joe1950
Post #327
...To your first paragraph. When we speak of "laws" of nature we are referring to the proven theories. If you are going to suggest that using human language to describe scientific concepts somehow "anthropomorphizes" science, then you would have to accept the fact that every word spoken by humans somehow anthropomorphizes whatever one is discussing. No. We use human words to describe non-human phenomena all the time. It works.hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 317 by Joe1950]
The term "law" is an inherently human concept. So when you apply it to nature, you are anthropomorphizing nature. If human concepts do not apply to the natural order, then you cannot speak of their being any "laws" there.
Also, I am suggesting that the best starting point for knowledge to f work from what we are most familiar with, and that is human existence. And In our experience, laws don't get there without a law maker.
Your example of manufactured goods is exactly what I mean. We know from our experience , the best starting point, that order requires an ordering mind, that you just can't throw paint on canvas and get a Mona Lisa. Plus, we know and arbitrary w that laws make for uniformities. We seek uniformities. So it would be very strange to assume there is one set of laws governing nature and then another set governing ourselves, such that supposedly blind, passive, inert, dead matter can produce order all by itself, but when it comes to our needs we have to bring in an ordering mind to get things done. No, I believe we all live under the same principles. Hence, what we find true of ourselves, that complex order requires a designing mind, also holds for the rest of nature.
Plus, law and order are exclusively mental concepts. It makes no sense to talk about them apart from mind. Why should supposedly blind, inert, passive, dead matter care whether or not there is order? Habit, regularity, ahs meaning only in a mental context.
Paragraph 2/3. What do you mean by "laws". I thought you just demanded that we do not use the word except to describe human behavior. So, we should not use it to suggest that a non-human watchmaker is giving us any laws. By your own suggestion we cannot attribute any laws to anything other than human behavior, so why would we assume a divine watchmaker used laws to make the universe?Inconsistency.
You can just throw paint on a canvas. You can have a gorilla paint a canvas and sell her paintings (Koko). You can paint a canvas a single color and have it hung in an art museum as a work of art. But you are correct, if you want to duplicate the Mona Lisa you need to have a plan. Again, man made objects are not analogous to the workings of the universe. I think you are making an error is logic when you assume that the "appearance" of order demands an "order maker". As you yourself have claimed, what we perceive through our senses is interpreted by our brains. We impose an order, sometimes, on things which do not have an order. Is there really a "human face" on the moon? Is there an outline of an hare on the moon? Or do we impose that order mentally? That is not to say that there is not order in the real world.
If we are to accept as fact that something created the universe and planned it we have to deal honestly with these numbers. There are 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy, many of which have planets. There are over 125,000,000,000 galaxies in the known universe. There are billions upon billions of black holes. Quasars. Etc. The numbers are numbing. What would the "creator" of such an unimaginable universe look like? Be like? Where would the power to do so come from? Or are you simply suggesting that the Big Bang is god?
-
Joe1950
Post #328
If only that were true. But science and technology not only solve problems, they often create greater problems. If the quest for beauty and living well were the ONLY by products of science life would be grand.hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 325 by Joe1950]
And when it comes to problem solving, that is also a prime example of what I mean. The problems science is called upon to solve are ones having to do with obstacles to our quest for beauty, obstacles preventing us from living well and living better. By solving problems, we expand our experience repertoire. Before electric lights, it was very difficult to go places at night and to do a lot of things around the house. Electricity completely revolutionized and enriched our lifestyle.
So, let me throw some realism into this. In 2016 the US proposed spending $69 billion on scientific research and $77 billion on military research. In other words, we spend more on finding more efficient ways to kill other people. Not a thing of beauty. The great scientific and technological advances in the use of fossil fuels have allowed us travel in a few hours what used to take months. A byproduct is pollution and global warming. We have all kinds of wonderful chemicals and pesticides and fertilizers. As a byproduct there is not a single water source in the US (possibly the world) that is drinkable at its origins.
The development of light weight weaponry that can be used to kill multiple people at one time and transformed warfare. For example, the Hutus and Tutsis used to have conflicts in which a few men were killed by spears while the women and children fled to safety. Now, over a million of these people have been killed, many by "child soldiers" using lightweight Russian-made weaponry. . No where to run. Nowhere to hide.
And , of course, the great scientific and technological advances of the Germans in the 1920s and 30s led to more efficient ways to murder Poles, Jews, etc.
Don't get me wrong. Indoor plumbing is great (thank you Thomas Crapper, inc) but the down side of science and technology is hardly a thing of beauty.
I wish I could agree with you that science and technology have, as a natural part of the system, only the advancement of the good life. But I don't think that is so.
Post #329
[Replying to post 327 by Joe1950]
Yes, whatever word or label we put on nature is anthropomorphizing nature. And that's a very important point to bear in mind here. Anthropomorphizing is the key to understanding.
The examples you brought up about the paintings also prove me point. In every one of your examples, a designing mind was at work on the painting.
I am saying laws have no meaning or existence apart from mentality. If you find laws in nature, then there is mentality at work there.
The fact that a genuine analogy or uniformity exists between us and God does not mean God is identical in every respect to us. In fact, it's the uniformities that make for the big differences. God is incarnate, just as we are incarnate. But we are incarnate in a very inferior way, just in our own, individual bodies. In sharp contrast, the entire universe is God's body. God is incarnate throughout the entire creation.
Yes, whatever word or label we put on nature is anthropomorphizing nature. And that's a very important point to bear in mind here. Anthropomorphizing is the key to understanding.
The examples you brought up about the paintings also prove me point. In every one of your examples, a designing mind was at work on the painting.
I am saying laws have no meaning or existence apart from mentality. If you find laws in nature, then there is mentality at work there.
The fact that a genuine analogy or uniformity exists between us and God does not mean God is identical in every respect to us. In fact, it's the uniformities that make for the big differences. God is incarnate, just as we are incarnate. But we are incarnate in a very inferior way, just in our own, individual bodies. In sharp contrast, the entire universe is God's body. God is incarnate throughout the entire creation.
Post #330
[Replying to post 328 by Joe1950]
It's certainly true that science has a down or dark side, no doubt about it. However, the fact remains that dark side got there because we were on the quest for beauty. What we did was make some serious mistakes as to how to achieve it. As I said before, the bad guys also seek beauty. We are but fallible and sometimes get screwed up in the process and end up where we didn't want to go. I just got ripped off by a friend who is a drug addict. I tried to help, but he ended up stealing my credit card and emptying my bank account. I have to say, however, he and I shared the same goals, wanting to live well and live better, etc. it's just hat he and I disagreed on the means to do so. And then getting addicted to drugs, he ahs to have the drug to live well. And although he diminished my experience and his as well, as he will probably go to jail, still each of us is capable of attaining other forms of enriched experience. So you really can never eliminate all beauty. It's just that you have to learn to live with what beauty is possible under the circumstances.
It's certainly true that science has a down or dark side, no doubt about it. However, the fact remains that dark side got there because we were on the quest for beauty. What we did was make some serious mistakes as to how to achieve it. As I said before, the bad guys also seek beauty. We are but fallible and sometimes get screwed up in the process and end up where we didn't want to go. I just got ripped off by a friend who is a drug addict. I tried to help, but he ended up stealing my credit card and emptying my bank account. I have to say, however, he and I shared the same goals, wanting to live well and live better, etc. it's just hat he and I disagreed on the means to do so. And then getting addicted to drugs, he ahs to have the drug to live well. And although he diminished my experience and his as well, as he will probably go to jail, still each of us is capable of attaining other forms of enriched experience. So you really can never eliminate all beauty. It's just that you have to learn to live with what beauty is possible under the circumstances.
